Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 20:05:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e351c3a68fe9fffc21c6b82a50743305af794dd0@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me>
	<1454e934b709b66a0cb9de9e9796cb46fed0425c@i2pn2.org>
	<vo5c8c$3ipo2$2@dont-email.me>
	<f7f9c03f97de054f6393139c74f595f68400ede5@i2pn2.org>
	<vo6b14$3o0uo$1@dont-email.me>
	<274abb70abec9d461ac3eb34c0980b7421f5fabd@i2pn2.org>
	<vo6rhd$3tsq7$1@dont-email.me> <vo79pq$8vq$2@dont-email.me>
	<vo7qqb$36ra$2@dont-email.me> <vo8jr6$7fbd$2@dont-email.me>
	<vo9gth$fuct$2@dont-email.me> <vo9o3h$gu6t$2@dont-email.me>
	<voah0r$m3dj$6@dont-email.me> <voambu$ng5r$2@dont-email.me>
	<voamvc$nv62$1@dont-email.me> <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me>
	<voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me> <voavuf$p4au$4@dont-email.me>
	<vob15v$ptj9$1@dont-email.me>
	<e3693316b91f4bd357aa26a12ebd469086c11c65@i2pn2.org>
	<vocpt8$16c4e$5@dont-email.me>
	<7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org>
	<vod3ft$18eoa$1@dont-email.me>
	<50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org>
	<vodrkt$1d1gu$1@dont-email.me>
	<cdaa950d75c0b258288974055228e93f38067535@i2pn2.org>
	<voft9v$1rkco$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 20:05:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3720032"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7550
Lines: 102

Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 10:52 AM, Bonita Montero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which proves that HHH fails to make a correct decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about DD's halting behaviour. All other methods (direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation by a world class simulator, etc.) show that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD halts. But HHH fails to see it. Everyone with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient understanding of programming sees that HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not correctly programmed when it aborts one cycle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the simulation would end normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete its simulation, because HHH is unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that Olcott does not even understand this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple proof that HHH produces false negatives. HHH is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable to simulate itself up to the normal termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, in other words, Olcott denies verified facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH generates false negatives, as is verified in
>>>>>>>>>>>>             int main() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>               return HHH(main);
>>>>>>>>>>>>             }
>>>>>>>>>>>> but he denies it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He lacks the ability to accept simple verified facts, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> he tries to hide with a lot of irrelevant words.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main cannot possibly be correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH until its normal termination.
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, which proves that HHH is unable to simulate itself
>>>>>>>>>> correctly.
>>>>>>>>> If this was true then you could point out exactly where HHH is
>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>> HHH is supposed to be a decider, i.e. halt and return the correct
>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH(DD) always halts and returns a correct
>>>>>>> value as soon as it correctly determines that its input cannot
>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>> We were talking about HHH(HHH). If the outer HHH halts according to
>>>>>> spec, so does the inner, because it is the same. Therefore it can’t
>>>>>> report „non-halting” and be correct. If the inner HHH doesn’t halt,
>>>>>> it is not a decider.
>>>> RSVP
>> Hello?
> I am not going to ever talk about that.
Oh goody, you’re never getting anywhere if you reject corrections.

>>>>>>>>> Here is the code point out the (nonexistent) error:
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c#L502
>>>>>> Look at it.
>>>>> That is not an error.
>>>>> It is a verified fact that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
>>>>> possibly terminate normally. The line you referred to does not
>>>>> change that verified fact.
>>>> You didn’t look at it.
>>> I did look at it and was pleased that you noticed the significance of
>>> this line-of-code. None-the-less it does not and cannot possibly alter
>>> the truism that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate
>>> normally.
>> The significance of that line is that it changes the halting behaviour
>> of HHH.
> So you have a very hard time staying laser focused on the actual exact
> point that this line-of-code:
> HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT DD SIMULATED BY HHH
> CANNOT POSSIBLY TERMINATE NORMALLY.
Sure. If you changed that line, it could.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.